Asia

India's BJP

On a roll

SO Narendra Modi, the burly chief minister of Gujarat, has romped to victory for a third successive time in state elections. In itself that is no surprise, though his emphatic margin of victory is striking: with counting half complete by mid afternoon on December 20th his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) looked set to equal its 2007 tally of seats, with Mr Modi sweeping aside rivals.

This is an impressive personal win for the charismatic, and controversial, Mr Modi who has dominated his state for over a decade—rather more than it is a victory for the party. Nobody should be any doubt that he now wants to push on and try to become prime minister. In an interview with The Economist a few months ago he made it clear enough that he has such ambitions (see here for the article and here for a partial transcript of the conversation).

Gujarat, a western state of some 60m people which is flourishing economically (though its social gains lag many other parts of India), is obviously a strong base for Mr Modi’s national hopes. In a country that looks rather short of compelling national leaders, he can now point to an increasingly credible and attractive narrative—a hatrick of electoral victories in the state, competent administration, political calm for a decade, a steady flow of investment by locals and foreigners, gradually warmer ties internationally as typified by Britain’s decision in October to engage with him.

Early next year he will oversee the latest “summit” of investors in Gujarat, reminding voters of his claim to be a competent economic manager. Next, if he is smart, he will take steps to become a more attractive figure nationally, for example by reaching out to Muslims and other minority groups, and perhaps by spending more time in Delhi or campaigning elsewhere in the country in a set of looming state elections in 2013.

National opinion polls in India are probably less reliable than they are in other countries, yet for what they are worth, they consistently show that Mr Modi is the single-most popular man to be the next prime minister, with about a quarter of voters’ support. Importantly, too, he has energy and a hunger for power. Sit with him for an interview and he appears composed, his eyes gleam with ambition and he is on top of his material. When pitched against more lacklustre or uncertain leaders, such as Rahul Gandhi of Congress (who dares not talk to journalists, or indeed almost anyone beyond a cloistered circle of advisers), he is the likelier to show vigour and vim. A general election in India must happen by mid-2014, though, just possibly, it could come next year.

Yet none of this is anything like enough for Mr Modi, or indeed the BJP, to look forward to national office with any confidence. Remember that Mr Modi remains a hugely controversial figure in India, especially beyond Gujarat, because of his behaviour in 2002 soon after getting into office, when communal violence left over 1,000 people dead, most of them Muslims. He was accused of turning a blind eye to massacres, and has since been happy to be portrayed as a Hindu nationalist.

When he campaigned beyond Gujarat on behalf of the BJP in the 2009 national elections he was able to stir up big rallies, but the party fared poorly when it came to voting. In more recent state elections he has either refused to campaign on behalf of his party, or has been discouraged from doing so. Some allies, notably Nitish Kumar, the popular chief minister of Bihar, work hard to keep him at arm’s length. Mr Modi is such a divisive figure that if he dominates the BJP in the coming year or two, there is a chance that the next national election becomes a referendum about his suitability to rule and his brand of Hinduism, rather than a discussion of Congress’s record in government. That might suit Congress rather well.

Congress, too, will be encouraged by its own state electoral victory on December 20th. In Himachal Pradesh, a small but relatively prosperous northern state, the incumbent BJP saw its haul of seats slump from 41 to 26, while Congress expected to get 36, and thus a comfortable majority in the 68-seat assembly. This fits a welcome pattern of anti-incumbency in the state: the two parties alternate in office, and thus appear to be responsive to voters’ demands. As in other well-run bits of India, such as Kerala, the alternation of parties in office appears to encourage politicians to be responsible. Ramachandra Guha, a bright observer of Indian politics, suggests the country might be better off if a broader two-party system were to emerge elsewhere too.

It is notoriously hard to draw convincing lessons from any state election results and apply them to national voting. In the years before the 2009 general elections, for example, the BJP had done well in state polls, only to be pushed aside by voters nationally. But the BJP and Congress will now look to a series of battles in looming state elections in 2013, in which the two of them are broadly pitched against each other: in Karnataka and Chhattisgarh (run by the BJP) Congress is the main threat, whereas in Delhi and Rajasthan (now run by Congress) the BJP is the main opposition. It is a fair bet that by the end of 2013 the BJP will be the happier about the outcome of those elections, and will hope to have built momentum for a national poll.

But there remain immense uncertainties. Not least is the question of Mr Modi’s dominance of the BJP. He is not good at holding together coalitions and making compromises (crucial qualities for any Indian prime minister), and the BJP may be seen, in effect, as a collection of regional groupings. Factions within the BJP are profoundly reluctant about him. An early test is what happens to the president of the party, Nitin Gadkari, who may be forced to step down later this month because of corruption allegations. Mr Gadkari is close to the Hindu nationalist grouping, the RSS, which has been very influential in the party but which distrusts Mr Modi’s independence. If, as seems likely, Mr Gadkari falls, then Mr Modi’s stock will be higher.

Broader questions remain about the BJP. What, for example, are its economic policies? The party, when it last held office in Delhi, was evidently in favour of liberal economic reforms and taking robust measures to promote economic growth. Yet in the past year or so, as Congress has become more active in promoting both economic reforms and new ideas for welfare (such as cash transfers for the needy), the BJP has floundered in response. The opposition’s confused and mistaken opposition to new rules on foreign investment in retail in India, and its bungled efforts in forcing a vote on the issue in parliament, make it look hostile to pro-growth measures just as India’s economy slows to less than 6% GDP growth. Again, Congress may be happy if, at the next election, it can present itself as the party that has stronger ideas about restoring rapid economic expansion for the country. Even Mr Modi, whose great selling point has been the economic success of his state, has opposed foreign investment in supermarkets. It is possible that voters agree with this, but it muddies the BJP’s record as a party of liberal economic ideas.

Last, it is unclear that Mr Modi would bring any broader national appeal for the BJP, which historically has fared badly in southern India and the north-east. A clutch of state elections are due in the north-east in 2013, but the BJP will almost certainly do poorly there. In the south the party has severe problems in Karnataka, its only toe-hold, and will have to hope in 2014 it could stitch together alliances with regional figures. But in building alliances and holding them together, it is still Congress that has shown the greater skill in recent times. Mr Modi, and the BJP, will have to learn some new skills if they are to turn state election successes into national ones.

That NaMo is the best man for the PM job is a foregone conclusion.But unlike sonia- he has to fight on four fronts : Internal Party, RSS, Allies & opposition.
In case he becomes PM in 2014, it will be very difficult for congress to come back.

Its a foregone conclusion that Modi is a polarising figure. In 2014, the question will be about Modi's contribution in getting BJP lok sabha seats. If BJP ends up having 180 (which is extremely difficult considering there are 6 states namely, Bihar/AP/TN/WB/UP/Orissa with 250 seats where BJP could wind up with around 20 seats max), Modi will have a decent shot. However, this is a very long shot and the more plausible result is BJP coming up with 130 odd seats. Under those circumstances, its very clear that only person who currently commands the respect and bonhomie with rest of the allies is none other than Nitish Kumar. His integrity and inclusive growth campaign has earned him kudos and his administrative skill of turning around a state like Bihar and decimating opposition (political heavyweight called Lalu) is more or less fairy tale. His humility and humble nature has attracted lots of admirors. Moreover, he can give the NDA a facelift regarding their image about minorities. This is a big plus and no one other Nitish currently commands it in the nation. Its wait and watch, but come 2014 and we'll be looking at a coalition govt with Nitish at top. OR, probably we'll end up having Mulayam running a short lived govt with congress's support. Just my 2 cents :)

Nitish Kumar isn't some inclusive fellow - he's a blowhard who has received backing from the BJP to help defeat an even worse scourge, the predatory Lalu Prasad Yadav. Note that it was the deceitful Lalu who fabricated the myth that the Godhra train burning was a result of spontaneous combustion rather than the mob which actually burned the train.

Lately, Nitish has taken to screeching demands at the Central govt to give his state privileged status. In other words, he knows his "inclusive growth" policies haven't done much, and is turning to extortion to span the gap between what he's promised and what he's delivered.

Nitish doesn't know much about economics, and your phrase "inclusive growth" is itself a slanted one. Growth has to be achieved by individual effort, and your apartheid obsession with group rights over individual rights shows that you don't understand what inclusion means. Growth doesn't result from guaranteeing someone's income, but from allowing people to motivate themselves to take advantage of the natural opportunities that occur in life.

Nitish does recieve BJP's backing to break Laloo's menace. No one has ever doubted that. His alliance with BJP is also oldest. Considering that UPA has been in power for past decade, it'll make all the sense for any politician to safegaurd his state's well being. If BJP is hell bent on harming its own chanes of getting back in power, why should Nitish be part of this suicidal wreck. In past few years, he has clerly understood that Bihar can only do so much with their own meagre resources. It needs a friendly hand at centre. Projecting Modi is not going to get BJP anywhere and there is a great chance that someone else (read Mulayam) will end up forming a govt W/ congress's support. Infact its for BJP's own good that they should project Nitish as their PM candidate and then formulaize a strategy to undo all the mess that UPA has brought in. Just look at the states, where do you think BJP is going to manage 180 seats (for Modi to become PM). Its not even rocket science. As far as my "apartheid obsession" is concerned, yeah I do believe that group rights do get a precedence over individual when the domain is social growth (and I am paying more than a BMW to Indian Govt as taxes every yr..and nope am not a businessman or lawyer..one of the biggest IB's on this planet is running the payroll for me )...but again what do I know...just my 2 cents..:)

You foolishly see political office as mere "power" instead of the opportunity to exercise good governance. That's because you don't know what good governance is. Other more civilized countries are more developed because they understand what good governance is, whereas you don't.

Modi has shown what good governance is, and the mediocre record of Nitish doesn't even compare. Nitish only looks alright if you compare him to outright crooks like Lalu whom he replaced. Nitish doesn't seem to have the knowledge or ability to provide significant development, and that's why he's having to launch his nutty new tirades at the Centre, demanding that they give Bihar some special new privileged status that nobody else deserves. He's just a desperate man resorting to desperate populist stunts to keep his political career alive.

Notice that Modi doesn't get along with the crooked govt at the Centre either, but unlike Nitish, Modi isn't trying to extort money from the Centre, and is instead pursuing growth through good governance. Nitish needs to learn from Modi, instead of acting like an ambitious opportunist. Once again, Nitish doesn't seem to care about what he delivers to the people, and instead seems to only be worried about his political career. That's why Biharis can't have the level of development Modi is acheiving in Gujarat. That's too bad for Biharis, and it's not a good sign for Nitish.

Well..last time I checked, "good governance" above all means maintaining the Citizen's right to "LIVE and BE PROTECTED".Putting mildly, something terribly wrong happened in 2002 and no one can deny that. Lets just say that Nitish's record governance is very decent. Yeah he gets compared to Laloo because thats what apple to apple comaprison means. Moving on to his so called "extortion" from centre, well in a federal structure you do get funding from centre and their policies can make or break a state's (specially like Bihar's) future. Whats wrong. I have no favorites here, neither Gujrat nor Bihar. But comparing Gujrat to Bihar doesn't makes sense. Biharis "have been" foolish. But they have turned a corner now. In fact probably, they look very good for an outsider like me bcoz whether Nitish becomes PM or stays CM, they are looking like destiny's child now. and FYI...your same list of "civilized" countries are said to have denied a stupid visa to modi. What can I say...looks like those group of so called civilized countries have slightly different definition of governance. I know..weird ....huhhhh...:)

You said "live and be protected" when you really mean "live and be protected while you burn trains". I don't think anybody has a right to burn trains, although Bihar's history shows that they probably recognize this as a legitimate right. That's why Bihar has always been famous for Jungle Raj. Right now people in the rest of the country are protesting against a rape, but such events are common in the Jungle Raj land of Bihar. Given that Bihar has had Jungle Raj for so long, and given that people actually voted for Jungle Raj by selecting Lalu Prasad Yadav, I don't see how you can claim that this Jungle Raj recognizes anyone's right live and be protected. Bihar has historically been the last place for that. If one wants to live and be protected, Bihar is the last place to go.
Those who voted for Lalu are the least credible people in talking about the right to live and be protected. Any sensible person will prefer to live in Gujarat over living in Bihar where their standards are completely different and quite lacking.
The same countries who denied Modi a visa did not deny any visa to Congressmen who led the 1984 riots. When Rajiv Gandhi shrugged off those riots by saying "When a Big Tree Falls, the Ground Shakes" nobody denied him any visa. Apparently, being a Congressman means you don't have to respect anybody's right to live or be protected. It shows that visa denials are based on which communities are powerful and which are not. Muslims, despite their pretensions of being a "tiny helpless minority" are actually the largest minority in a sea of minorities. It is the rest of us who are smaller, and not them. Likewise, it's the Congress kleptocracy who are powerful, communal, and predatory, and they are by no means any saviours of secularism. They are only exploiters and hijackers of language which they have appropriated for themselves.

Replace Bihar with India and Lalu with UPA in your first paragraph. So what you get is India not having right to rectify its mistake. UPA won for 2 terms. Fair and Square. Indian voter is not you and me writing comments on Economist. Almost all of them still have to worry about "live and be protected". Gujrat constitutes 5% of Indian population. Modi's share is probably more than half, so around 3% approval is more or less a statistical error but some moronic creature (yeah...you are absolutely right about person am referring here) think that as a trend. Anyways, the beauty of Indian deomocratic farbic is that morons also have rights to be heard. The distribution of statewise seat composition is a very public information. Just do simple "hits and miss" and you'll realise that even in best case scenario BJP'll have around 135 seats. Thats not 272. You know who can bridge that gap and bring allies onboard (with fully calming down there fears of minority retribution)..Just a simple hint...the same stalwart from Bihar. In 2014, Nitish is going to be PM and this is not even a miracle..just plain logic!!! But again what do I know....:)

Haha, Nitish can't even stay ruling Bihar without BJP support. For him to imagine being PM is laughable. Nitish dreams of being wherever he currently is not, because he's always looking to escape the current mess he's made. When you say "morons" you must be referring to yourself. I don't care if BJP doesn't get 272 - nobody wants to be responsible for the worthless Bimarus anyway. Let them rot in their own self-inflicted misery of their own creation.

Its a foregone conclusion that Modi is a polarising figure. In 2014, the question will be about Modi's contribution in getting BJP lok sabha seats. If BJP ends up having 180 (which is extremely difficult considering there are 6 states namely, Bihar/AP/TN/WB/UP/Orissa with 250 seats where BJP could wind up with around 20 seats max), Modi will have a decent shot. However, this is a very long shot and the more plausible result is BJP coming up with 130 odd seats. Under those circumstances, its very clear that only person who currently commands the respect and bonhomie with rest of the allies is none other than Nitish Kumar. His integrity and inclusive growth campaign has earned him kudos and his administrative skill of turning around a state like Bihar and decimating opposition (political heavyweight called Lalu) is more or less fairy tale. His humility and humble nature has attracted lots of admirors. Moreover, he can give the NDA a facelift regarding their image about minorities. This is a big plus and no one other Nitish currently commands it in the nation. Its wait and watch, but come 2014 and we'll be looking at a coalition govt with Nitish at top. OR, probably we'll end up having Mulayam running a short lived govt with congress's support. Just my 2 cents :)

Contrast the attitude of the west with what happened in neighboring Myanmar - the leaders don't express any remorse, mock the suffering of the muslims as Bangladeshis who must go back - even SuKyi says that & how does the west respond? Do they take away her passport, stop her from coming to the west? oh no, nothing of that sort
What about when hundreds of Sikhs were killed & Rajiv Gandhi's govt did nothing? Why didn't the west ban him then?
How about when 300,000 Kashmiri Hindus ethnically cleansed from their homes? What did the west do? Look the other way, that's what. Try going to BBC and search for Kashmiri Hindus - there are NO hits! None! It's like the ethnic cleansing never happened
What's the difference? Modi is Hindu, he is dark-skinned, his nose not so straight or thin.
Sukyi is Buddhist & we know Buddhists, like christians must not be blamed - look at what happened in Srilanka - did anyone even dare suggest it was a religious war? That the war started because the Budhist majority was discriminating against the minority Hindus? See the article above - see how they constantly refer to religious discrimination
And yes, Rajiv Gandhi IS white, his nose is straight & so was the CM of Kashmir
Bigotry exists, Racism exists, double-standards exist

Yes and the subject of my post was that there seems to be two laws - one for white people & the other for darker-skinned ones. Well, we are not in the middle ages - we are not slaves anymore & we should not let them treat us like one
Secondly, there is no evidence that he did anything wrong - basic accusations, motivated by racial prejudice
For eg Srilanka - if the roles were reversed - if the fight was between majority Hindus vs minority anyone, suddenly they make it a religious fight - when it comes to christians & Buddhists, it has nothing to do with religion? Most times it does not & we need to be treated fairly
I am sorry but there much bigotry & double-standards in this world - we shut up, we will always be victims & yes alwasy will be 2nd class people

Another slave who blindly follows the west
If not for a diverse society, there would be no Buddhism today! The same Buddha, if had been unlucky to be born in Europe or muslim lands, would have been branded a heretic & tortured to death! His writings burnt, his followers killed! There would be no such thing as Buddhism today. No Sikhism, Jainism, Zoarashtrism, Bohra Islam nor any Tribal religions
Accepting a diff point of view is what democracy is all about - just because someone is different does not mean he or she is wrong & must be forced tobe one of the majority
That kind of view has led to countless killings - fortunately for the mass murderers, none of those killed are alive today to testify
You love these kind of views when u are one of the majority, not so much when u are a minority

Yes, we should be not treated like slaves and we should better out standards as well. Proof? Do you really think you will find proof against a ruling party in india? If that's what you think, you are clearly biased and of roles were reversed you would be certainly not ask for proof. He was in charge of Gujarat. Riots happened under his watch. It's his problem and at the very very least he needs to apologize for not keeping law and order in His state. Don't try to reflect blames on others by pointing out what is happening in the rest of the world. We are talking about Gujarat and modi, not Sri Lanka and Hindus. A lot of worse things are happening in the world and we need to ensure every situation is treated equally and every bodies action, inactions, and possible motives are judged equally and fairly. And again the topic is Gujarat and modi.

Yes, I agree that he should have apologized - he was the CM, it happened under his watch & he should have not only done more, but also say how sorry he was - he is acting like a fool in this matter
The point i do make is that there is no evidence that he instigated the riots, just plain old bigotry against a Hindu, that's all I see
Bad incidents have happened in other countries & yet their religions are not being blamed - for eg - every time a muslim does soemthing, the west immediately says muslim killer, islamic terrorist etc but when something happens in the west, suddenly religion is NOT mentioned
i am not trying to deflect blame, but i do want to point out how naive we are - we think the world is nice, it is not - there is much bigotry & double-standards in this world. We need to stop being innocent and yes a bit 2nd class thinking - we were slaves once, our mindset is still a bit slave like when it comes to the west - that is what i am trying to change

Modi himself is an OBC backward caste, buddy. While anyone else would boast about their low-caste background, Modi doesn't brag about it at all - that's unheard of in Indian politics. I admire his modest nature, coupled with his tremendous accomplishments.

That's why caste-baiters like you fear him, don't you? He's a low-caste guy who's achieved success through hard work and talent, not by demanding affirmative action quotas while sitting on his thumbs. People like you are afraid that if Modi's example takes off, then you won't be able to demand free handouts anymore. That's why you're so against him - because of your own selfish greed.

"On his watch" - buddy, this isn't a game of Simon Says. Otherwise, then burning of a train happened on your community's watch. Rioting over Youtube videos happens on your community's watch, and no other community's. Rioting over Dutch cartoons. Rioting over Koran burning. Etc,etc - ad infinitum, ad nauseum - no other community does this but yours.

Who rioted and burned Azad Maidan mere weeks ago? Yours did - no Hindus were involved. Who rioted and vandalized Amar Jyotish War Memorial mere months ago? Yours did, and nobody else - they were captured on TV news. Who rioted in the old walled city of Ahmedabad in Gujarat mere weeks ago, over that Youtube video? Yours did again - nobody else. Muslims are not a timid community in India, and their riots constantly plague this country. Just like they plagued Mumbai after Babri Masjid demolition. You people rioted in anger over Ayodhya, and then you falsely blamed Shiv Sena by pretending they started it when you really did. And the Congress Lying Machine backed you up, and so your "truth" prevailed. That's disgusting. The more the Congress kleptocracy encourages and indulges your community, the more you use it as a license to riot further. That's why riots keep happening in India - it's a destructive cycle.

Stop with your "Buddy" - I don't know who taught you English. And your poisonous words towards muslim show how twisted your thinking is. Of course, Muslims are the only problem in this equation and Congress is the only evil in India.

Your poisonous words towards Hindus shows your twisted thinking. I'm an atheist, and I'm not the only one criticizing the relentless rioting by Muslims - there are plenty of other people around the world unhappy with it. Who the hell riots over a Youtube video or a Dutch cartoon? It's yours that does - and that's why you need to take a harder look at yourself and try some self-criticism, instead of imagining everyone else to be twisted. A community that persists on that destructive course will only end up uniting the entire world against them.

Brilliant and to the point. But the west deflects by never denying it has double standards. An essentially North Indian mindset prevented India from seeing the civil war in Sri Lanka as a genocidal war to eliminate Tamils,a majority of whom were Hindu.

You do ignore a fact. Gujarat is a BJP stronghold - BJP was going to win their without any question and will continue to do so for the next 20 years with or without Modi. The question always was by how much will they win and magical number was 117 seats or more. And the answer is, they did worse than their victory in 2007 (115 seats). I would not read that as Modi victory. Remember, number don't always tell the full story and one sided media is not good for anybody.

Indeed Gujarat is a BJP stronghold but it was never going to win it so easily without Mr Modi. 20 years is a long time to predict, you remove Modi in the next state assembly elections and field someone else from the BJP in his place, It won't come as a surprise to anyone if the contest turns out to be neck to neck. In short it was the charisma of Modi that helped him register another thumping victory. He had a clear road map in his mind and delivered whatever he had promised to the people. And yes numbers don't always tell the full story even if you have won just two short of the seats you won time.It shouldn't matter much too.

Buddy, Congress played a divide-and-rule trick in Saurashtra through Keshubhai Patel. Nobody cares what you think, since it's obvious you intend to berate Modi no matter what. You'll be better off in Pakistan, rather than trying be the tail wagging the dog, expecting us to all revolve around you narcissistic desires. Areas where BJP won had wide margins of victory, while areas where Congress won were bare low-margin victories.

Land reforms pave way for real estate and help in easy allocation of such lands to industrial houses for setting up of factories but if this was the case then why did West Bengal under Mr Jyoti Basu's control couldn't register the growth that Modi helped register for Gujarat. Mr Modi is a man of his words and a synonym for development.

If BJP blocks Mr Modi's rise as a national leader,and doesnt declare him to be their candidate for premiership,Mr Modi could well think of leaving BJP and forming his own political outfit.Himachal Pradesh election results have proved that BJP is not capable of winning any electionsby itself unless Mr Modi campaigns for his party.India looks forward to Mr Modi's leadership and people feel that he has not just won Gujarat but the entire India.Good luck to you,Mr Modi.

The 2002 communal riots in Gujrat were bad. But I suspect anyone who mentions these riots without mentioning how as part of a pre-planned conspiracy a set of muslims burnt a train compartment, at Godhra, with 58 Hindu pilgrims(which included 25 women and 15 children) returning from Ayodhya(a sacred place for Hindus).
I am not suggesting that the riots were justified. I am not suggesting that the Hindus should have retaliated. It was shameful and wrong, regardless of the provocation.
HOWEVER I ALWAYS REMAIN resentful of the intentions of anyone who wants to tell about the 2002 riots without mentioning the dastardly and provocative act that preceded the incident.

You HAVE to disclose all facts and let the readers judge for themselves.

The article specifically mentions that Mr. Modi is guilty of turning a blind eye to the riots.

I would leave it to the readers, whether the knowledge of the burning of pilgrims in that train before the riots started, alters their overall view of the events or not.

Again I want to emphasis I am not condoning Mr. Modi's act(assuming that he did turn a blind eye), I just want to make sure that the readers have the full facts. Also I see something sinister when publications deliberately fail to mention the events preceding the larger riots.

Finally, one way or the other I hope nothing of that sort ever happens anywhere in the world.

You are right, the whole facts need to be disclosed. It was not right what happened before the riots.
But I have to offer, it changes nothing about what happened after that. If people burned the train, they should have been bought to justice by the law. Burning, killing, and raping innocent people, who had nothing to do with the train burning incident was not justified under any circumstance. What was even more unjustified was the fact that Modi's government did nothing to change anything about it and to rub salt to wound, Modi never admits, or apologizes, for the deaths or his inaction during the tragedy.
This has scared him for life. If he had the humility to simply accept his fault and apologize, a lot of moderate muslims and moderate hindus will see him differently.

and also after the riots broke out, out of the 1,000 people killed, 200 were Hindus - but all the personal tragic stories were all about muslims - they simply did not, would not, interview or give voice to any of the Hindus
These western media outlets play the religious card & we Hindus are too foolish to see that

Read about other riots or other instances of tragic events in other countries, even countries like england, response HAS sometimes been slow & not because of any prejudice
How about the sikh killings - would u venture to say the Rajiv Gandhi's Govt did nothing about it? Did they encourage it? The conversation stops - Rajiv Gandhi is white, we still judge people based on color of their skin

I have lived in UK, USA and Delhi, I know the difference. A delayed response in England means late by an hour. A late response in USA means, late by 15 mins. In Gujarat, it took him 3 days. Don't try to defend him, it proves you have lost all consciousness.

wow, wow, wow - i have lived in the US for the past 25 years also - I see plenty of corruption, plenty of delays here also, so please u are not talking to a naive person
Back when i was a kid they used to say that if u post a letter in the west today, it used to get there yesterday, lol! And of course followed by some mocking comment about India
We will continue to be 2nd class as long as we keep mocking India & putting her down - I am sorry i don't agree that things move so fast in the west - faster yes, they ARE a richer country, they have better roads, better cars - they CAN move faster, but beneath the skin color they are the same as us - sometimes we keep forgetting that

Riots are a non-linear explosive phenomenon, and Modi could not have predicted any of this would happen. It's unreasonable to hold him to some arbitrarily high standard, just to scapegoat him. Modi shouldn't have to apologize for what he was not responsible for. The train-burning and the resultant riots could have happened in any state, and the fact that it was Gujarat was random coincidence. Meanwhile, dirty Congressmen who are leading the inquisition are the ones who directly carried out the 1984 riots by their own hand - their own partymen like Jagdish Tytler directly led mobs to kill innocent people. Now they are dressing themselves up as saints and fingerpointing at others. It's all so that these corrupt autocrats can hang onto power - absolutely despicable.

What rubbish - in 1984 Delhi riots, it did not take Congress 3 days to respond. On the contrary, they immediately responded, by doing the killing themselves. When it comes to killing people directly by their own hand, the Congressmen don't delay their response.

I challenge you to find any other administration in India which responded to riots better than Modi did in 2002. Name that politician, name that leader, name that incident. You won't find any. The high police deathtoll in the 2002 riots shows the active response.

Show me one Muslim leader who has responded effectively to riots. Usually, if riots occur, they are leading them.

it is not in depth and impartial coverage.It is biased summary of what appears in Indian paid media repeatedly against Modi on whimsical assumptions.No body talks about limitations of Sonia Gandhi,one of the richest politicians of the world.She is responsible to prosper cult of corruption in India.

"Remember that Mr Modi remains a hugely controversial figure in India, especially beyond Gujarat, because of his behaviour in 2002 soon after getting into office, when communal violence left over 1,000 people dead, most of them Muslim"s.

The Economist underestimates the feeling towards Muslims by Hindus in other parts of the country. As Pakistan continues to needle India, more Hindus equate local Muslims with Pakistan, always wondering where their allegiance lies.

So, don't be surprised if Mr. Modi is elected prime minister of India, represented by a BJP government. Other countries would do well not to rub him on the wrong side. The US has put a ban on his travel to America. It would be interesting to see how the US would treat a Prime Minister Modi.

Gujarat is a BJP stronghold just like Texas is a Republican Stronghold. This news says nothing and the sentiment you speak of is more of a Hindu Extremist mentality rather than the common mentality.
Even though Gujarat is a BJP stronghold, BJP did worse in Gujarat compared to what it did in 2007 elections, in addition, Congress humiliated BJP again in HP and the entire South and East India doesn't vote or align with BJP. A BJP victory is unlikely in the Center, simply because of the reason it's popular in Gujarat. The Secterian Hindutva message of BJP leadership. Not even one Muslim candidate competed on BJP ticket in 2012 Gujarat elections, a static that matters in UP, which is the biggest Indian state and the state with 25%+ muslim population.
Lastly, US made a public announcement of asking Modi for a US visa again, reason enough declaring a change in policy. Get up to speed "Public Dude"

You are not a national citizen, I don't consider you to be any countrymen worth having. Your pretentiously hollow name reminds me of how dictatorships like China or North Korea label themselves "People's Democratic Republic of..."

Modi is not a Hindu extremists, and has famously had roadside temples bulldozed when they obstructed traffic. It shows he's a no-nonsense pragmatist. Meanwhile he's been unjustly demonized by your predatory Congress kleptocracy - the same rats who directly carried out the 1984 riots which massacred thousands of Sikhs. Same rats are now draping themselves in the robes of "sekoolarism" and pretending they are saints. It's absolutely disgusting.

Gujarat is most religious minded state. Naturally from 1995 BJP ruling on that state..Modi taken advantage of religious weakness of Gujarati murdering more than 1000 innocent Muslims.He created with help of Gobble type propaganda development and good governance in Gujarat.Real fact is Gujarati by nature traders,they even created good traders image in USA.They are so dominated in motel business in USA , Motels are known in USA as a potel.From middle age richness of Gujarat well known thatwhy Shivaji Maratha king looted Surat twice.Modi`s contribution of development of Gujarat is very small

Modi's role in the 2002 riots has been probed for the last ten years by a variety of commissions and courts, including the Supreme Court. None have found him culpable. People who keep calling him epithets such as 'murderer of muslims' are either deliberately malicious or do not believe in the Indian judicial system. They fit in well with end-of-the-worlders, aliens-visiting-earthers, and other lunatic fringe groups. Any sensible person would now accept Modi as a mainstream politician, while possibly criticizing him for not apologizing for what happened.

supre1@ My dear friend recall what BJP Prime minister Atalbihari told to Modi "Rajdharm ka palan karo"[FOLLOW ETHIC OF RULER] at 2002 riot period,Modi may personally not involved in riot but he did not deed any thing to stop riot..He is very hardcore bigot Hindu,and he never hide it.Development and good governance his mask,real Modi is bigot.I challenge to Modi if you have so great capacity for development just use it in Bihar, U.P. Rajasthan M.P or Chatisgad than world will call you VIKAS PURUSH

Riot is a non-linear explosive phenomenon, which escalates so rapidly that any govt would be hard-pressed to contain it, especially in a populous country where population vastly outnumbers the state. And yet police deathtoll in 2002 was quite high, which shows the active response of the state. I challenge you to find me any Indian govt which has shown better handling. Name one leader. How could Modi have predicted that Muslims would burn a train?

Meanwhile, let's look at your Congress Thugocracy - their partymen directly led mobs during the 1984 riots to massacre thousands of Sikhs. It's not that they failed to stop the riots - they were directly leading the riots. Then when great dynasty prince Rajiv Gandhi was asked about this, he shrugged it off, saying "When a big tree falls, the ground shakes." And now this same party is grotesquely transforming itself into "secular" saviours? Recently, Congress Chief Minister Sheila Dixit blocked Sikhs from building a memorial to the 1984 Delhi riots. The vile attitude of the Congressmen persists to this day. Riot ringleaders like Congress politician Jagdish Tytler stand unpunished to this day. And yet these people are crowing from the rooftops to pretend they're the guardians of secularism? They are a predatory kleptocracy that will tell any lie, no matter how horrific.

No you don't - you only reluctantly acknowledge Congress crimes, when others corner you on it. I see no posts from you raising the topic of your own accord. You have a disproportionate fixation on some, for your own petty reasons which have nothing to do with ethics.
Where is the visa ban on Congressmen? Do you support it?

The article has hinted that Modi's latest election victory in the state of Gujarat has catapulted his potentiality to become the next prime minister of India.Gujarat is notoriously known as the home ground of Hindu fundamentalist in India.Therefore,there is no wonder that the Hindu fundamentalist party BJP would win the election there.The party will continue to win election battles in Gujarat under the leadership of any Tom or Dick,if he is equally racist like Narendra Modi.Gujarat is not India.It is a very small part of India.People of other parts of India are more enlightened than the Gujarati people. They will never return the BJP under the leadership of Narendra Modi to power in New Delhi ever.

How about getting rid of your blinders and maybe taking a good look at his RECORD? His administration is corruption free, Gujarat has been growing at more than 10% every year, even when the rest of the country is down, they have more electricity than they need, business friendly - with people like urself - India will always be poor - the west will keep manipulating us - he is a Hindu - the west has a problem with that

West or East has no problem with Modi for his being a Hindu.He can be compared with a bird of prey who frequently hunts down the minorities for keeping his equally racist followers in line.That is the problem for everyone including majority of Indians.Even BJP leadership would think twice before asking him to lead India.

Creative mind? maybe you need to change that to a disgusting mind or a hateful mind
I am assuming u are not Indian, a paki? hiding behind that name? I see that ur country is doing so wonderfully, falling farther & farther behind India, so much violence, killing each other day & night - no wonder u hate peaceful, prosperous India so much. Modi has led Gujarat to double-digits growth each & every year - imagine him doing that to the whole of India! wow!

Your Muslims are not the only minority in India. In India, everyone is a minority, and Muslims are actually the largest minority in a sea of minorities. This is shown in voting patterns, in economic patterns, in language, in history, and everything else. You want to use the word 'minority' in a way that will exclusively cater to yourselves. The fact is that the word 'Hindu' was coined by Arabs, just as Columbus called the North American natives 'Indians'. Those 'Indians' of North America weren't one single homogenous ethnic group, despite his label. Likewise, it's the same thing for the 'Hindus' of India. You can't accept being just another minority/ethnicity in a sea of minorities/ethnicities, and see anything less than special privileged status as 'oppression'. I beg to differ. Learn to see that you're no more special than anybody else, and that this reality is not any kind of 'oppression'.

Do not assume anything.Your assumption is wrong.Why I can not be an
Indian or a citizen of a country away from India?Let me assure you that my mind is not only creative but also clear from hatred.You may hate a Pakistani,but can not deny that minority and inter cast bashings happen in India also from time to time like Pakistan.Please don't be in a denial mood and do not abuse another unknown person by calling names.It only smells of bad taste.
I believe that Narendra Modi is not acceptable to his own party to lead India or the party.You have every right to disagree. Fair enough
and no problem with me.

No where in my post the word Muslim was mentioned.Do not be touchy about those who do not practice your faith whatever it may be.Every one can not be a minority.Anyway,you are entitled to your ideas.But may I request you to let everyone know the name of the religion the majority of the Indians practice?

I am an atheist, sir, and I don't accept privileged status for anyone - no matter how much the Congress tries to shove it down our throats by using this word 'minority' over and over again.

The Congress is only trying to play a desperate game of divide-and-rule, to keep their crumbling kleptocracy in power. Short of raising their own orphans Ceaucescu-style, the Congress Party will do anything to cultivate a tribe of die-hard loyalists to rally around their decaying regime, mainly by stooping to ethnic fear-mongering. The kleptocracy wants to play with fire, in the hopes of keep the restless suffering masses at bay, but the fire will only burn them.

You talk like a guy who is behind everyone else in his thinking, even while he imagines himself to be ahead of everyone else in thinking.

So you practice atheism.No problem.I must however make it known to you that I consider atheism as a different kind of religion.
A minority does not want privileged position in the society for his being a minority.He wants only equal treatment in all respect.No more-No less.A political party would always like to exploit the situation for the benefit of the party.It has nothing to do with providing him a privileged status. The words"minority and majority"
will never disappear from our vocabulary.But a person from the majority group is not supposed to be more privileged than a gentleman representing a minority group.
All the political parties try to create a die-hard loyalists group around them for obvious reasons.The party you named is no different.Please check out the other parties.You will be surprised to see the results.
Sorry to mention that you have wrongly assessed the way I think or what I imagine about myself while thinking.Although my question remains not replied,it was nice talking to you.

Everyone wants equal treatment, and Muslims aren't some exclusive category to demand it on different terms. As I've said, Muslims are the largest minority in a sea of minorities. When the word "Hindu" itself was coined by them as an umbrella word across a myriad of ethnic groups, then they are a self-declared minority. They are no more special than anybody else, and don't deserve any special treatment.

Please give me one country where there are no conflicts - India has more than a billion people - yes there will be differences, vultures circuling ready to point out religion every time there is a conflict - you show urself as one of those vultures
How about Racism in the US? Where is the outrage? How come the religious card is not being played? As u urself said, killings happening in pakistan. As I have posted the abuse & killings of muslims in Myanmar - yet the west has kept quiet - SuKyi has shown no remorse, says these muslims are Bangladeshis, should go back! Where is the outrage? Yes, she has white skin, her nose is straight
The game is being played - u are one of the gamers it seems, careful, one day the person whom u support will also be played the same way

The word "Hindu" was not coined by the Arabs as mentioned by you.It drives from the Sanskrit word Shindhu,local application for the Indus
River and was first mentioned in 'Rig Veda'. The Europeans borrowed the term from the Arabic word Al-Hind who borrowed it from the Persian word Hindu meaning the people who were the inhabitants of the entire ancient India.Therefore don't blame a particular religious group for the name even though you apparently dislike the group like the political party you support.If you really want to blame anyone for the name--blame 'Rig Veda"or at best the ancient Persia.
I believe in equal treatments for all and the matter ends there.

I requested you not to indulge in name calling.As you have failed to do so,I must therefore ignore you.Meantime,you may procure a copy of today's(Dec.24,2012) English Newspaper"The Hindu" and see the news item published therein under the headline"Modi's development claim 'phoney',says Katju". Also consider the conversation between us as closed.

Buddy, people in other parts of India are nowhere near the Shindhu/Indus river. The word Hindu was coined by outsiders who traded with that region. They didn't care to make any distinctions between the locals, and instead just saw them as a single entity - just like Colombus named the North American natives he encountered "Indians". They weren't a single people or ethnicity either, and were more diverse than that, but the name stuck.

The fact is that Indians are a diverse variety of people, and everybody in India is a minority. Muslims are just one minority in a sea of minorities. This is reflected in the voting patterns, the political behaviour, the cultural behaviour, the arts, the music, the language, the history, etc, etc.

You can't cope with this idea, because then it just messes up your artificially contrived grievance politics. Learn to live with reality, instead of trying to contrive your own just to nurse a grudge. You sound pathetic.

Google the word "Hindu'. You will find your answer and then eat your words you have been repeatedly mentioning in your posts in this respect.
Columbus went out to discover India and ended his journey in North America.He believed the inhabitants as Indians and wrongly named them so.
It is always useless to continue conversation with a thickheaded person and as such consider this discussion as closed.Henceforth,no response will be made to your racist comments from my side.

Again, "Hindu" is not a locally created word, but is a foreign origin word. The fact that there are countless numbers of deities in the so-called "Hindu religion" shows that it's not even one religion. If you feel it's a single religion, then you should be able to tell me exactly how many deities it has.
Why don't you tell me who the "first Hindu" was? Why don't you tell me who founded the "Hindu religion"? Who was the "Hindu Mohammed" or "Hindu Jesus"? There is no founder, just as there is no founder of "North American Indian religion". Polytheism is the result of many different ethnic groups, and therefore it's not a single religion in any meaningful sense. It's just a collection of local beliefs.

You seem to be trying use the word "Hindu" to create some imaginary majority, in order to justify special treatment for others. Rights should be guaranteed as individual rights, and not as group rights. You seem to be trying to use the notion of group rights to avoid the need to personally work hard. You want your economic situation to be dictated by which group you belong to. That's not a viable means to sustain any economy. People have to work to sustain themselves, and there is no way to magically throw money into their laps just because they claim membership in a particular group. You have to learn how to work, and how to be valued through your work, rather than claiming some inherent value based on identity or ethnicity. Yours is a formula for laziness, backwardness and downfall.

Fabulous - one guy says it's phoney & u rush to believe it? There is guy who wants to sell you a bridge, you interested? Gujarat has consistently grown at over 10% a year - how do you explain that? He is lauded by almost every Business leader - how do you explain that?
There is a reason why some countries remain poor, there is a reason why India has remained poor - making the wrong choices - Modi gives us the best chance to bring our country out of poverty, but then people like you know how to drag us down - you kick food out of your own children's mouths when you do that, don't forget

The fact that Modi is from a low OBC caste and yet is the nation's most accomplished son, truly makes me want to support him to the hilt. He has achieved massive development and economic growth, and has never boasted of his humble family roots. In Indian politics, that's unheard of.

Even if I am not from a low-caste family, I certainly see him as being above me.

Poorly written article.A party goes into polls in two states,wins one loses another,while previously running both and the conclusion drawn is that it is on a roll.Deeper analysis shows that even in Guj it loses vote share by 1.5%,not catastrophic but hardly a sign of a party which is on a roll.

Citizens of Gujarat were offered two very distinct choices.
1. Congress, as usual, offered free benefits such as promise of free laptops, free housing etc. Also, tried to divide the electorate on the basis of religion, caste etc.This type of cynical ploy has served the party well over last sixty years, at the cost of any meaningful progress of India as a country except for a tiny tiny minorty who have enriched themselves at the cost of orinary people of India.
2. Mr. Modi, offerered no free bes but a manifasto cleary articulating what he would do, if re-elected. He promised no hand outs, but provided a vision for people where they can move to by their own hard work and the state only acting as the enabler. He also refused to make any promise based on caste, religion or ethnicity.
People of Gujarat,based on Mr. Modi's past performance, irrrespective of their religion and caste, have accepted his vison as the path forward and rejected the cynical offer of the Congress Party.
After 250 national and provincial elections during last 65 years in India, this election of Mr. Modi, I hope, is some what different. It goes beyond the personality of Mr. Modi. For the first time in the history of independent India, people have voted on the basis of ability to deliver and not on empty primises and short time gains.
This has really rattled the the supporters of the status quo who had the free run over the populace for such a long time. But it is only the beginning. Mr.Modi has opened the pandora's box. Just imagine how India would look like when all its citizens elect their Govt. on the basis of performance and on the basis of caste,or religion!
Whether Mr. Modi was guilty of negligence during the Godhara has already been decided by the Supreme Court.
That he won a cleanly fought election against all odds, when even some of his own party men tried to sabotage his election and despite almost daily onslaught by the main stream English media ( mostly beneficiary of the Congress largesse)over last 10 years in itself deserves to be noted.
I hope rest of India will also caught on the idea of electing Govt for perfoamance and reject cynical offering and divide and rule options by any party. That would be a great time all Indians (not Hindus or Muslims) and I hope it comes during my life time.

The west is the problem - they are led by a hateful religion that mocks & hates anything non-christian - Modi's "crime" is that he is a Hindu - neighboring myanmar - we have ethnic genocide, none of their leaders have apologized nor have shed a tear, yet the western media keeps its silence
In SriLanka the majority Buddhists used their army to kill the Tamil Hindus, yet again, the western media keeps its silence. Modi? Suddenly they are banning him left & right
We Hindus must realize that a game is being played - that decisions are being made not according to a person's actions, but because of pure religous hate

More than anything else,Modi's win exposes the sheer ideological bankruptacy of the Congress Party,which still holds on to its ancient gramaphone record of the 2002 Gujarat riots and expect the Muslims to carry on its political jihad against Modi.It does not occur to the party that the Muslims ,at least many of them,might have moved on from 2002 and are looking to be active partners in the economic resurgence of the type they witness in Gujarat under Modi.

China previously had to suffer under the tyranny of Mao's widow Madame Jiang Qing, and her reign of terror in the name of "Cultural Revolution". Likewise, India is suffering under the misrule of Sonia Gandhi and her cronies, in the name of "Sekoolar Revolution".

It's only after China overthrew Madame Jiang and her infamous "Gang of Four" that the country was able to move on to a new era of progress and advancement under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping. Likewise, Indians will have to oust the crooked kleptocracy of Sonia Gandhi and her cronies, so that they can move on into a new era of progress and advancement under the leadership of Narendra Modi. The Modi era will be like the Deng era, in that it will be remembered as a Great Leap Forward for India.

After being sent to prison for her crimes, Madame Jiang eventually committed suicide, with her final suicide note saying, "I Want to Join You Mao!"

What rubbish - she ducked accepting a public office because that would put her on the hook for actually doing something. Sonia's ideal is to wield power without any responsibility. That you would try to dress up that fact as something noble says more about you than anything else.

Sonia wants to sit around doing nothing for anyone, and yet hold power. That's not democracy. A democracy is where you vote for someone who does something for you. The Congress meta-dictatorship has formulated a way for them to simply have the party run, without actually putting forward any leader who can do something for the people. That's because the Congress Party's goal is not to do anything for the people in exchange for their vote, but just to lord it over the country and preserve the party's interests, while letting the nation slide into the dump. The party exists to preserve the party, at the expense of the nation. The nation is treated like a husk, whose only purpose is to sustain and serve the party.

A democratic leader is an accountable leader. Sonia is the opposite - she is someone who wants to seize votes and not take up any public office herself, where she would have to do something for the people. Holding public office is about having accountability to those who elected you, and Sonia definitely doesn't want that. She has no skills, no experience in providing good governance, and so she knows she'd be a flop if she were to hold public office. So what Sonia and her Congress are providing to the people is an horrendous rip-off -- Sonia is wielding power without accountability. She has dismissed govt ministers at times, through her mysterious "National Action Committee" even though she holds no public office. She's a dictator ruling from the shadows, like a Dragon-Lady.

The fact that you would defend or justify such an horrifically undemocratic arrangement tells us all we need to know about you. Real democracies are where those who run for election then take up public office and are accountable for what they do for the people. The shadow-rule you are defending is absolutely contrary to what democracy is all about.